Awaiting the verdict in Alexandria, Virginia’s federal court, 69-year-old former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort’s life hangs in the balance. Charged with tax evasion, bank and wire fraud, money laundering, etc. for consulting work for former Ukrainian President Viktor Ynaukovych 15 years ago, Special Counsel Robert Mueller pulled out all the stops to get someone formerly on Trump’s campaign payroll. Charged with investigating Russian meddling and alleged Trump collusion in the 2016 presidential campaign, Manafort detoured far-a-field, snagging Manafort for overseas work 15 years before the campaign. Mueller’s prosecutors left no stone unturned, hitting Manafort with everything but the kitchen sink, preparing detailed exhibits proving Manafort guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But Manafort’s defense attorney Kevin Downing knows it only takes one juror.
No matter how high Mueller’s pile of evidence, it sometimes makes jurors’ heads spin, compared with the simple case presented by Kevin Downing. Downing simply needs to get one juror or more to doubt the state’s case. However many witnesses Mueller’s prosecutors’ called, no matter how much damning evidence presented, if one or more jurors doesn’t trust the government’s case, Manafort walks. Constitution’s double jeopardy clause prevents the state from retrial unless they can prove some major impropriety by District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III or the jury. Presenting Manafort’s former business partner Rick Gates who struck a plea deal to avoid prosecution can be the prosecution’s poison pill. Downing took Gates apart on the witness stand for all the jurors to see. Jurors heard Gates admit that he defrauded Manafort for hundreds-of-thousands of dollars.
Anyone watching the O.J. Simpson murder trial in 1995 saw lead Los Angeles District Attorney Marsha Clark present her mountain of evidence against the former National Football League Hall of Fame running back. When the dust settled, several jurors agreed with OJ’s lead defense attorney the late Johnnie Cochran. No matter how outraged the public, it only takes one juror inside the courtroom to turn the mountain of evidence into cotton candy. When the Manafort jury asked Ellis yesterday for a definition of reasonable doubt, it opened a Pandora’s box for the prosecution. It’s a prosecutor’s nightmare when they present a compelling case but a good defense attorney raises reasonable doubt in just one juror. All the hard work, all the painstaking exhibits, all the compelling evidence and all testimony and witness statements can vanish into oblivion with reasonable doubt.
Judge Ellis, who’s no nonsense approach admonished prosecutors for over zealotry, especially with regard to Manafort’s lavish spending habits, wanted to keep his courtroom clear of the political fervor swirling around the case. Democrats pray Manafort gets convicted, giving Trump a black eye, hopefully leading to more convictions in the 2016 Russian meddling case. Covered 24/7 by the cable news outlets, the battle-lines have been drawn between Democrats and Republicans. Trump weighed in before the jury returns its verdict. “I had no idea this case would exited these emoti0ons . . . I don’t feel right if I release their names,” said Ellis, refusing to release their names to the press. With Democrats praying for a conviction and Republicans hoping for acquittal, Ellis had no clue that the Manafort trial would command such intense public interest.
Republicans think that if Manafort gets off, it spells the end to Mueller’s Russian meddling and alleged Trump collusion investigation. If Manfort’s convicted, Democrats hope it helps smear Trump before the Midterm elections, giving Democrats a leg up to take back the House and Senate. Whether or not there’s actually that much riding on the case is anyone’s guess. “I think the whole Manafort trial is a very sad, when you look at what’s going on there. I think it’s very sad day for our country,” Trump said, potentially influencing jurors. No matter how much the jury is instructed to not pay attention to news of the trial, in the age of cell phones it’s next to impossible. Trump thinks it’s said that Mueller went after Manafort for work that had nothing to do with his mandate to investigate the 2016 election. If the jury gets hung, prosecutors can only second-guess what they could have done differently.
Dealing with “reasonable doubt” is no easy matter for jurors trying to apply subjective standards in a criminal trial. Bringing up Manafort’s ostrich boots might go over the top for jurors, trying the old-time political consultant for extravagance not tax evasion or bank fraud. Unlike Downing who kept the case simple for jurors, prosecutors went into great financial detail to prove Manafort’s financial crimes. But if one or more juror doesn’t trust Gates, the prosecution’s main witness, all the compelling evidence turns to rubbish. “We trust jurors to be on their best behavior and wall themselves off but that kind of goes against human nature,” said Jens David Ohlin, Cornell University Criminal Law Professor. Ohlin criticized Trump for chiming in before jurors’ return the verdict. Judging by jurors’ request for a definition or “reasonable doubt,” it looks like its going Manafort’s way.
